Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Timothy Michael v. Kiawah Island Real Estate LLC, 12-2363 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2363 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2363 TIMOTHY A. MICHAEL; MELINDA V. MICHAEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. KIAWAH ISLAND REAL ESTATE LLC; GORDON J. HILLOCK; THE GUERRY GROUP LLC; JOSEPH H. GUERRY; LISA G. MCCASKILL, Defendants - Appellees, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02709-RMG) Submitted: May 30, 2013
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2363 TIMOTHY A. MICHAEL; MELINDA V. MICHAEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. KIAWAH ISLAND REAL ESTATE LLC; GORDON J. HILLOCK; THE GUERRY GROUP LLC; JOSEPH H. GUERRY; LISA G. MCCASKILL, Defendants - Appellees, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02709-RMG) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Stuckey, Jr., Alissa R. Collins, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. William A. Coates, Carroll H. Roe, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina; Robert H. Hood, James B. Hood, Brian J. Kern, HOOD LAW FIRM, LLC Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy A. Michael and Melinda V. Michael appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Michael v. Kiawah Island Real Estate LLC, No. 2:11-cv-02709-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012; Oct. 5, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer